Just to show you that liberalism on college campuses isn't anything new, here is a part of a Q&A Milt Friedman did at Stanford University in 1978. This little spoiled idealist, condescendingly, asks the brilliant Friedman "How free are the poor, how free are the unemployed, how free are the people who are disadvantaged? What is government's role?" Friedman proceeds to tear him and everyone else a new one. Pay attention to when some moron yells out "Have you ever been poor?" Friedman shuts him right up. Here is the vid:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rls8H6MktrA&feature=player_embedded

*-I'm well aware of the typo in the title.

PoliCon

04-13-2010, 01:24 PM

Milton is teh awsum!

wilbur

04-13-2010, 01:27 PM

Much of what he has said here has been disproved by modern study - welfare recipients and their children, for instance, tend to be better off economically overall, than those who never take advantage of the program. So its quite the opposite of a 'poverty engine'.

NJCardFan

04-13-2010, 01:29 PM

Much of what he has said here has been disproved by modern study - welfare recipients and their children, for instance, tend to be better off economically overall, than those who never take advantage of the program. So its quite the opposite of a 'poverty engine'.

You are so naive it's sad. It really is.

wilbur

04-13-2010, 01:44 PM

You are so naive it's sad. It really is.

Its hard to let go of a dogma, I know - but an honest person has to do it here . Friedman was wrong.

ralph wiggum

04-13-2010, 01:51 PM

Fixed your thread title, NJCardFan. :cool:

Articulate_Ape

04-13-2010, 02:19 PM

God I wish that man was still with us today. :(

Articulate_Ape

04-13-2010, 02:20 PM

Its hard to let go of a dogma, I know - but an honest person has to do it here . Friedman was wrong.

You are deranged. EVERYTHING that man predicted would be the result of growing government happened EXACTLY as he predicted it would. Snap out of it, meathead.

Apache

04-13-2010, 08:13 PM

Its hard to let go of a dogma, I know - but an honest person has to do it here . Friedman was wrong.

Oh yes! You are such an HONEST MAN, so honest you provided the.....ummm.....uhhhh....

Where's the link to your "proof"?

Constitutionally Speaking

04-13-2010, 08:25 PM

Much of what he has said here has been disproved by modern study - welfare recipients and their children, for instance, tend to be better off economically overall, than those who never take advantage of the program. So its quite the opposite of a 'poverty engine'.

There is so much ignorance in this statement that I do not know where to begin.

Taken strictly as stated, perhaps - (although I would like to see the studies as I suspect they are poorly constructed -as they run contrary to just about every single respected study out there), but it ignores so much and the implication you are trying to make is just a load of hogwash.

Milton was 100% correct in every single statement he made.

Constitutionally Speaking

04-13-2010, 09:07 PM

welfare recipients and their children, for instance, tend to be better off economically overall, than those who never take advantage of the program.

There is so much ignorance in this statement that I do not know where to begin.

Taken strictly as stated, perhaps - (although I would like to see the studies as I suspect they are poorly constructed -as they run contrary to just about every single respected study out there), but it ignores so much and the implication you are trying to make is just a load of hogwash.

Milton was 100% correct in every single statement he made.

In seperate and independent studies all three of the major investigations on this, headed respectively by Guilder,Murray and Mead, concluded that there is a correlation between poverty and government welfare-type expenditures. Poverty has increased with increased government assistance.

In addition to that, it DOES create a poverty trap. Corbett, in 1993 found that 70% of new entrants to the welfare system STAY in the system for at least 8 years and 30% of them NEVER escape.

on edit and after reading a bit closer. Skip my second sentence. It is pure hogwash in its entirety.

Constitutionally Speaking

04-13-2010, 09:12 PM

God I wish that man was still with us today. :(

We miss him a lot. He was a HUGE influence in my life and although I have been critical on his quantity theory (works extremely well if velocity is relatively constant - not so much if it varies - as it has since we went off the gold standard), he still is one of the best ever.

Most people don't know just how important Rose was in his professional life also. They were very much a team.

NJCardFan

04-14-2010, 01:56 AM

Its hard to let go of a dogma, I know - but an honest person has to do it here . Friedman was wrong.
I need to know who your doctor is because I don't know what you're on but I want 5 pounds of it.

PoliCon

04-14-2010, 09:23 AM

Much of what he has said here has been disproved by modern study - welfare recipients and their children, for instance, tend to be better off economically overall, than those who never take advantage of the program. So its quite the opposite of a 'poverty engine'. Dependency is 'better off' in your book? :rolleyes: